You can tightly pack 8 people into a 5 by 5 square (curse those theater group exercises). Moreover it is what the spell says it does. You don't have to know how it works. Simply that it does. That is how magic in most games including pathfinder tends to work.

Mirror Image
Illusion (Figment)
Level: Brd 2, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal; see text
Target: You
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Several illusory duplicates of you pop into
being, making it difficult for enemies to
know which target to attack. The figments
stay near you and disappear when struck.
Mirror image creates 1d4 images plus one
image per three caster levels (maximum
eight images total). These figments
separate from you and remain in a cluster,
each within 5 feet of at least one other figment
or you. You can move into and
through a mirror image. When you and the
mirror image separate, observers can’t use
vision or hearing to tell which one is you
and which the image. The figments may
also move through each other. The figments
mimic your actions, pretending to
cast spells when you cast a spell, drink
potions when you drink a potion, levitate
when you levitate, and so on.
Enemies attempting to attack you or
cast spells at you must select from among
indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll
randomly to see whether the selected
target is real or a figment. Any successful
attack against an image destroys it. An
image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier +
your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react
normally to area spells (such as looking
like they’re burned or dead after being hit
by a fireball).
While moving, you can merge with and
split off from figments so that enemies
who have learned which image is real are
again confounded.
An attacker must be able to see the
images to be fooled. If you are invisible or
an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell
has no effect. (Being unable to see carries
the same penalties as being blinded.)

This is the way I was remembering it worked.

Anyway I expect SKR's ruling to be implemented into the rules now that "closing your eyes" is okay.

Another Mirror Image/ Ability question.
If an alchemist throws a bomb into the square occupied by the Wizard and his images, does she destroy all of the images since they all would take splash damage?
Or alternately, would they all reflect the damage that the wizard took (Also splash damage) and only the image that was directly hit be destroyed?.
I lean to the later myself.

Spells that require a touch attack are harmlessly discharged if used to destroy a figment.

why don't mirror images have an AC 10 10+size modifer, as explained under the illusion school/figment entry? seems to be an incongruity in that mirror images are only destroyed if it hits defender ac-5

the defender AC-5 is ment to simulate an attack that on the real person would touch them but not actually hurt them.

many times missing actually means your attack glanced off of the opponents armor, was deflected by a shield or the attack was close enough to cut cloth but didn't actually cut flesh.

in these cases, since the image does not actually have armor, or does not actually move correctly to dodge all attacks swinging within 5 of AC breaks the illusion though it would not actually hurt a real target.

as an alternative you could say, if the attack would hit the targets touch AC but would not hit the targets actual AC the attacker rolls a chance to break an image.

EDIT: Oh, and remember the images are moving and dodging. that's why they are not just 10+size. because they are actively evading in the same way the player is. figment entry assumes a target that is not actively or intelligently attempting to evade.

If an alchemist throws a bomb into the square occupied by the Wizard and his images, does she destroy all of the images since they all would take splash damage?
Or alternately, would they all reflect the damage that the wizard took (Also splash damage) and only the image that was directly hit be destroyed?.
I lean to the later myself.

Area effects do not affect images. They appear damaged, but don't go away (splash damage is an area effect)

So by throwing the bomb into the square you gave up chance to hit the wizard directlt (could have killed a image instead too) and hurt wizard with splash.
If you instead targeted the wizard but hit an image, the wizard takes splash and 1 image is destroyed.

In any reasonable and actual interpretation of "I can see", when you close your eyes you cannot see. For example, the famous game of "I've got my eyes closed, I can't see you, so you cannot see me."

You can see your eyelids.

So you admit that the mage has total concealment from you, since your eyelids fully block line of sight. Argument over. Whee.

EDIT: Incidentally, the rules for averting your eyes function for the entire round. You cannot take actions, even free actions, when not your turn (speaking is an exception), so you can't close your eyes in reaction to a gaze attack; so you have to do more.

During your turn, closing your eyes would likely be a free action, taken on your turn. In 99% of cases, willingly granting your targets total concealment would be entirely unhelpful. Even in the case of mirror image, you're giving your foe a 50% miss chance (effectively upgrading him from mirror image to displacement), plus all the extra stuff that comes with total concealment (immunity to any sneak attack you would do, for example). I see nary a problem with expending a 1st level spell that specifically allows you to bypass miss % to turn fighting blind to your advantage in this case.

The sheer fact people are calling this cheese is astounding. You know the rules already say you can foil invisibility with stuff like flour, right? A pound of flour is 2 copper pieces. Foils a 2nd level spell. Wrap your head around that one.

To be clear I personally never called it cheese, I just said closing your eyes to be able to hit something more often is dumb, and wasn't spelled out in the rules, but again, with SKR's post it is official. Notice what I predicted is already coming true... he says it should be at least a move action, you say free.

To be clear I personally never called it cheese, I just said closing your eyes to be able to hit something more often is dumb, and wasn't spelled out in the rules, but again, with SKR's post it is official. Notice what I predicted is already coming true... he says it should be at least a move action, you say free.

It may seem dumb at first, but in this case it falls under "your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them". When your eyes are lying to you, you might be better off without them.

Lazer X, well i haven't read those threads either.....there were two combat situations in the PFS scenario where the monk was critical to our succeeding in our encounters

Spoiler:

the first encounter in the scenario, we needed a reliable way to deal non lethal damage to the city guards....we mad good use of color spray spells (my character) and his Character was able to beat people into unconsciousness.

in the final encounter with the Magus....our monk grappled him and shut down his spell casting.
My character whacked at him with his Masterwork Bastard Sword (Katana) with a true strike spell and a shocking grasp spell.

Our opponent never got the chance to shield himself with a mirror image spell....yeah monks squeezing and NPCs failing concentration checks.

Ashiel, i'm afraid I don't understand, your younger borther, playing 3rd level goblin expert, killed a wyvern by himself? and he had a 3 point buy?

I am playing by standard Pathfinder Society Organized Play rules...so his ability scores were bought on a 20 point buy.

This evening at a local gaming store we played #2-21 the Dalsine affair.

The party consisted of a 6th level magus, (my character), a 5th level monk, and a 5th level Dhampire cleric of Pharasma. There was also a 1st level ranger, and a 1st level cleric.

We had a good time. I got to do my one step two step shuffle.True strike and shocking grasp to good effect.

While my characters did some respectable damage, it was the monk who shut shut our opponent.

I guess the monk player forgot to read the posts on this board that "proves" his class is worthless. :)

My younger brother soloed a wyvern at 3rd level with a goblin expert on 3 point buy. What is your point?

LOL! Sure he did.

It's funny what you can do when you're skilled at the game. He was playing a goblin expert. As an expert, he was allowed to choose his own class skills. In addition to a number of utility skills, Perception, Stealth, and the like, he also took Handle Animal. He purchased several oxen and train them for war. His Dex was pretty decent due to his +4 racial, and he got a nice +1 size mod to AC, plus his armor, and he carried a shield around, and was very fond of the total defense action. During a traveling period, a wyvern attacked. He dove away, gaining cover from the oxen, taking a total defense, and using his shield. The wyvern slapped him exactly once during the encounter with his tail (he narrowly evaded the poison) which almost took him down but didn't.

The oxen had a +7 to hit for 1d8+9 damage by themselves which is plenty to hit the wyvern's 19 AC on a 12 or better, but also had the trample ability. Wyvern are large with poor manueverability, so its fly skill was only +5. Once he was in range to hit the oxen and/or the goblin, the oxen hit him and he is forced to the ground upon getting hit. At which point the goblin pulled back and kept commanding his trained oxen to pummel the wyvern to death. Once he was on the ground, the oxen pounded the large creature with their gore attacks for an average of 13 damage per hit. The wyvern fought back valiantly, but was slain before it could kill all the large horned beasts. It expected them to just be normal farm oxen and an easy meal. It turned out that it was wrong.

He owned the wyvern in tactics. He used tactics to avoid dying, and his minions to kill the wyvern. His minions were part of his gear allotment, and trained with his own skill. At 3rd level. As an expert. With 3 point buy.

Ashiel, i'm afraid I don't understand, your younger borther, playing 3rd level goblin expert, killed a wyvern by himself? and he had a 3 point buy?

Yes. Clever use of tactical actions, maneuvering, making use of soft cover to avoid AoOs, making optimal use of his equipment, skills, and opportunities. He commented that he only wished he had thought to grab some alchemist fires before the trip, as that would have really charred the wyvern's bacon (it's a large creature with a sucky touch AC, vs a small goblin with a good dex tossing touch-weapons) for jumping his caravan like that.

Combat-trained aurochs should not be willing to attack a wyvern -- and if they really were combat-trained, that eats up all six of their tricks, so they aren't even allowed to have the additional training necessary to attack a wyvern.

that's true, you need a second attack trick in order to attack "all creatures", otherwise, it will only attack, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, and animals. Wyverns are magical beasts.

Actually, wyverns are dragons, and you're allowed up to six tricks. His aurochs had been taught to attack anything he told them to. Otherwise, he could have gotten them to attack (but it would have been much harder) with a DC 25-27 Push check.

Balphers wrote:

Before anybody says that he didn't 'solo' the wyvern due to the oxen being present--remember that he paid for the oxen out of his own resources. Looks legit to me. And well done, I might add.

Ashiel, i'm afraid I don't understand, your younger borther, playing 3rd level goblin expert, killed a wyvern by himself? and he had a 3 point buy?

Yes. Clever use of tactical actions, maneuvering, making use of soft cover to avoid AoOs, making optimal use of his equipment, skills, and opportunities. He commented that he only wished he had thought to grab some alchemist fires before the trip, as that would have really charred the wyvern's bacon (it's a large creature with a sucky touch AC, vs a small goblin with a good dex tossing touch-weapons) for jumping his caravan like that.

Well Ashiel, I would take my hat off to your youger brother for his tactics, if i wore one.

well done. I just thought that i had misread your post, and addmitedly, I think having one of my characters, a paladin if i remember, once been at the receiving end of a wyvern's tooth claw and stinger fury, I had trouble imagining how a goblin expert with a three point buy could take down a wyvern......lots of war oxen......heh.....well good job.

Earlier you described him as making them "war trained", which I assumed meant combat-trained, which is the full six tricks and does not include a second attack trick. If he just taught them a custom set of tricks, that wouldn't be a problem.

Anyway, regardless, Handle Animal and training some attack animals is a very viable tactic at low level.

Earlier you described him as making them "war trained", which I assumed meant combat-trained, which is the full six tricks and does not include a second attack trick. If he just taught them a custom set of tricks, that wouldn't be a problem.

Anyway, regardless, Handle Animal and training some attack animals is a very viable tactic at low level.

Well he didn't ride the oxen (he rode on a little dinosaur mount), so he didn't bother training them to bear riders and such, so he went with either the attack general purpose, or maybe it was the guard general purpose. I don't remember which, but I remember he had to teach them Heel on its own so they would follow him; and since neither of those have heel and would still allow all tricks + heel and fight anything, it must have been one of those two. It was many games ago, however. Maybe if I could find the copy of his sheet and minions. The campaign didn't last too long 'cause it was just going on while one of our friends was in the hospital.

Elyas Ravenwood wrote:

Well Ashiel, I would take my hat off to your youger brother for his tactics, if i wore one.

well done. I just thought that i had misread your post, and addmitedly, I think having one of my characters, a paladin if i remember, once been at the receiving end of a wyvern's tooth claw and stinger fury, I had trouble imagining how a goblin expert with a three point buy could take down a wyvern......lots of war oxen......heh.....well good job.

Much thanks. I'll let him know you said that. ^-^

Wyverns are indeed pretty dangerous. I've used them as NPCs several times, and I've encountered one or two when playing as a PC (I was playing a psion at the time, so I was mostly diving for cover while blasting them, with the barbarian protecting me from venomous wrath :P). They've actually been toned down from 3.x, since in 3.x they got a spirited-charge type attack on the first round most of the time (in 3.5, a flying creature can make a diving attack that works like a charge, but they deal x2 damage with talon attacks).

You really gotta watch out for them swooping and snatching people off the ground. Arial Charge->Grapple (surprise round), 1st round grapple->move (flies 1/2 speed, carrying the victim off with him). If the party can't force the wyvern out of the air, each round becomes harder to get the poor fellow back down. ^-^"

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.